Combined EMU/Loco hauled

Post by Roland Perry
I'm in Amsterdam today, and saw an interesting train at Centraal this
morning. There are EMUs and loco-hauled trains, and quite often the
latter are configured with the loco in the middle of the train, with one
rake of carriages either side (and a driving cab at each end, I
suppose).
But this morning there was a train where one of those rakes was an EMU,
rather than trailers. So it went Trailers/loco/4-car EMU
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

I think that describes the old Gatwick express units (488/489 was
it?).

Mark 2 trailer coaches in the middle, 73 locomotive at one end, single
coach EMU (luggage van) at the other.

John Salmon

2010-02-23 11:44:58 UTC

Post by MIG

I think that describes the old Gatwick express units (488/489 was
it?).
Mark 2 trailer coaches in the middle, 73 locomotive at one end, single
coach EMU (luggage van) at the other.

A Google search on "Loco VEP TC" (a combination I recalled) brought up a
link to this:
"There used to be a rush-hour working out of Waterloo made up of a 33/1
diesel loco, 4-TC trailer unit and 2x4-VEP EMUs. It would split at
Basingstoke, with the diesel section going to Yeovil and the 8-car electric
section to Southampton (or somewhere down that line anyway). Quite a sight,
a single 33 apparently leading 12 coaches... early 1980s I think. The
33/1+4-TC would work two Clapham Junction - Kensington Olympia shuttles
before going empty to Waterloo to join up with the VEPs."

Peter Masson

2010-02-23 13:42:55 UTC

Post by John Salmon
a single 33 apparently leading 12 coaches... early 1980s I think.

In 1967 and 1968 the Wolverhampton to Ramsgate Summer Saturday train was
formed of the 12 coaches of 'The Executive' stock, including 2 full kitchen
cars and a high proportion of first class stock, even though it was
advertised as second class only, and with a miniature buffet. Anyway, it was
hauled by an electric loco to Mitre Bridge Junction, which was replaced
there by a 33. I wonder how it coped with Sole Street bank on the return
journey.

Peter

Chris Tolley

2010-02-23 17:22:57 UTC

Post by Peter Masson

Post by John Salmon
a single 33 apparently leading 12 coaches... early 1980s I think.

I took a picture on 1980-03-04 of 33 106 hauling 11 into Reading on a XC
service. In those days, there would have been a 47 waiting at Reading to
take it forward. 33s were not uncommon on the SR leg of those journeys,
though they were mostly 47s.

It's here: http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632877.html

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857147.html
(66 092 at Basford Hall, 11 Mar 2005)

Roland Perry

2010-02-23 12:57:46 UTC

In message

Post by MIG
Mark 2 trailer coaches in the middle, 73 locomotive at one end, single
coach EMU (luggage van) at the other.

So the luggage van was in effect a self-propelled DVT?

--
Roland Perry

MIG

2010-02-23 16:36:05 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by MIG
Mark 2 trailer coaches in the middle, 73 locomotive at one end, single
coach EMU (luggage van) at the other.

So the luggage van was in effect a self-propelled DVT?
--
Roland Perry

Yes. When they first appeared, I thought that they were the ones that
used to be used with boat trains (ie coupled to CEPs etc), but
apparently they were different ones, converted from class 414 HAP
motor coaches, and only had one driving end. Someone will confirm ...

Checked in meantime that they were listed as class 489 EMUs.

d***@blueyunder.co.uk

2010-02-23 16:44:23 UTC

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:36:05 -0800 (PST), MIG

Post by MIG

Post by Roland Perry
In message

Post by MIG
Mark 2 trailer coaches in the middle, 73 locomotive at one end, single
coach EMU (luggage van) at the other.

So the luggage van was in effect a self-propelled DVT?
--
Roland Perry

Yes. When they first appeared, I thought that they were the ones that
used to be used with boat trains (ie coupled to CEPs etc), but
apparently they were different ones, converted from class 414 HAP
motor coaches, and only had one driving end. Someone will confirm ...
Checked in meantime that they were listed as class 489 EMUs.

Perzackly!

Converted from the batch of 2-Haps that were geared for 90 mph, with a
guards compartment & extra double doors for checked luggage.

Often described as DVT's, but listening to the motors disproved that
theory, as did a conversation with a drive at Gatwick.

Odd point, they were fitted with shoe-beams on the trailing bogie,
allegedly to provide better continuity of the HEP supply to the train.

I did ask why the loco couldn't supply HEP as well but was told that
because the HEP cables weren't rated for traction current, (as in if
the loco was gapped over pointwork) it wasn't possible.

ISTR that the ride was "quite" jerky over complicated pointwork.

DC

D7666

2010-02-23 20:03:41 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
Often described as DVT's,

Whoever describes them as DVTs has something really wrong then.

The were DMLVs by generic type and quite definitely motored.

Calling them DVT sounds like someone new lacking in heritage and not
doing their research properly. The term DVT only came about with WCML
and ECML push pull there were no DVT before then (only DBSO on Edin
Glas).

GAT stock was around well before any DVT was thought of.

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
Odd point, they were fitted with shoe-beams on the trailing bogie,
allegedly to provide better continuity of the HEP supply to the train.

No, if the GLV were the sole power on the train i.e. a completely
failed EDL, the EDL was diesel only, it was to reduce gapping by
double the number of shoes. I agree only a single car length will be
prone to gapping anyway but 2 shoes per side is better than 1.

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
I did ask why the loco couldn't supply HEP as well but was told that
because the HEP cables weren't rated for traction current, (as in if
the loco was gapped over pointwork) it wasn't possible.

Thats either a wrong answer, or, depending on how you think, the
answer to another question.

First the locos *could* have supplied ETH (HEP) to the train. IIMU
there was an operational decision to ETH GAT from the GLV as GLV+GAT
could be treated for exam purposes as a ''multiple unit'' and dealt
with all together in the EMU part of SL depot, whereas the EDL would
be split off much more often and dealt with in the loco part. When GAT
was set up a two part depot, only in later TOU / TOC days did 73/2 get
maintained in a dedicated GEx facility all in the EMU depot. Second,
it is nor permitted to couple two ETH sources together (well not in UK
practice anyway, and I'm not sure anyone else does it). It was
operationally simply to say always ETH from one rather than the other,
and having good reasons from the first bit pf the paragraph to heat
from the GLV it fulfilled the second part.

EDL heating GAT stock was done at least one. I know. I charted the
train involved - but we has 2 x 73 + 3 x 3GAT + GLV and the van was
cut out all day, so the locos had to heat. There was a special
instruction for this, but no special technical arrangement, it needed
to mods, it worked, just paper to say it had to be so.

The bit about ETH cable not being traction current rated is true, but
this is not the answer to the ETH question. It is one answer, of
several, to why an EDL and GLV were not traction connected, which is
not the same thing.

--
Nick

DW downunder

2010-04-06 11:56:43 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
Often described as DVT's,

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
Odd point, they were fitted with shoe-beams on the trailing bogie,
allegedly to provide better continuity of the HEP supply to the train.

Nick

Thanks - typed in a hurry, I can see.

Do I take it that the GLV acronym you use refers to the DMLVs of class 489?
What does it mean, Gatwick express Luggage Van, perhaps?

DW downunder

D7666

2010-04-09 19:42:46 UTC

Post by DW downunder
Do I take it that the GLV acronym you use refers to the DMLVs of class 489?
What does it mean, Gatwick express Luggage Van, perhaps?

GLV is what they were, in SR terms, DMLV did not exist.

DMLV would be a generic term, whereas GLV is a class type.

--
Nick

Graeme

2010-02-23 11:29:57 UTC

You mean apart from the Bournemouth line?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/>

Roland Perry

2010-02-23 12:58:49 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

You mean apart from the Bournemouth line?

What was the mixed configuration used there. (The Waterloo trains
described elsewhere in the thread?)

--
Roland Perry

Graeme

2010-02-23 13:24:54 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

You mean apart from the Bournemouth line?

What was the mixed configuration used there. (The Waterloo trains
described elsewhere in the thread?)

Others have described the Salisbury/Southampton workings. In addition the
trial push-pull trains for the Weymouth service sometimes consisted of a
4CEP+73+4TC.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/>

Charles Ellson

2010-02-23 22:54:32 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

You mean apart from the Bournemouth line?

What was the mixed configuration used there. (The Waterloo trains
described elsewhere in the thread?)

Others have described the Salisbury/Southampton workings. In addition the
trial push-pull trains for the Weymouth service sometimes consisted of a
4CEP+73+4TC.

Weren't there also occasional oddities involving EMU+4TC+cl.33 ?

Charles Ellson

2010-02-23 23:13:35 UTC

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:54:32 +0000, Charles Ellson

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

You mean apart from the Bournemouth line?

What was the mixed configuration used there. (The Waterloo trains
described elsewhere in the thread?)

Others have described the Salisbury/Southampton workings. In addition the
trial push-pull trains for the Weymouth service sometimes consisted of a
4CEP+73+4TC.

Weren't there also occasional oddities involving EMU+4TC+cl.33 ?

Ah! John Salmon has confirmed that further down.

Graeme

2010-02-24 07:58:00 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

You mean apart from the Bournemouth line?

What was the mixed configuration used there. (The Waterloo trains
described elsewhere in the thread?)

Others have described the Salisbury/Southampton workings. In addition the
trial push-pull trains for the Weymouth service sometimes consisted of a
4CEP+73+4TC.

Weren't there also occasional oddities involving EMU+4TC+cl.33 ?

In the early 60s the SR did quite a lot of experiments with different
formations. Generally when operating a class33 and and an EMU the traction
motors on the later were isolated so the EMU was effectively a 4TV for
control purposes.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/>

D7666

2010-02-24 14:26:15 UTC

Post by Graeme
In the early 60s the SR did quite a lot of experiments with different
formations. Generally when operating a class33 and and an EMU the traction
motors on the later were isolated so the EMU was effectively a 4TV for
control purposes.

I think you might possibly have confused two different test set ups
and/or confused with some of the early days of Bomo line working when
Reps were delivered out of sequence.

The first push pull test set out to establish two different results,
and used EL or EDL (i.e. 71s or 73s) with various formations of Ceps
MLVs and LH stock. In these the Ceps had motors isolated.

One group of tests was to prove to MoT or whoever it was at the time
that trains up to 90 mph with a driving tralier could be allowed.
Until that time, SR EMU were globally limited to 70 mph, and all main
line express units had end motor coaches (Pul/Pan Bel Cor/etc Lav),
only the 2car sets like Hal and Bil had one end driving trailer and
they were (I believe) limited to 60 mph at that time. Propelling
driving trailers at 90 mph had to be proved, not only for the Rep/TC/
EDL etc operation but for the forthcoming Cig units, the first SR
express unit with one intermediate motor coach, AM9 (Clacton units)
AM10 etc etc. Those tests started out using a 71 pushing various test
sets of hauled stock, motor isolated Ceps, and MLV as control cars.
Tests were not to prove push pull per se although rigged up control
cables were laid through the stock involved if not already cabled,

The second set did use motor isolated Ceps, this time with 73s and
again MLV as control heads, in various lengths (there was a special
3Cep involved) with one or 2 73s and/or one or 2 MLV. These were the
push-pull control tests and used to make alterations to the already
established 1957 27-way control equipment (i.e. Cep as built) into
1966 control equipment (Rep TC). ((1963 on Cogs control was another
step that allowed the intermediate motor coach and was not in itself a
push pull evolution step)).

The 33+dead EMU tests were again something different. These were
primarily to evolve the EP braking braking control mods and diesel
loco engine control mods. D6580 was used, and yes, while it did run
around with old EMU cars they were not really push pull rials in the
sense they need to prove anything with push pull, it had already been
done with the EDLs. The 33 had to have the modified brake
controllers (and don't forget 33s have 4 driving positions) and
configured a Westcode device to respond to electric logic signals to
create stepped engine control pressures.

Yet another thing was the 6Cor - 601/701 yes that was a de-motored EMU
but was a real trailer set, not a motors isolated set up, and had end
ETH connections.

The last bit was that Rep motor caches were delivered out of sequence
and one or two apparently without motors. Thus it was possible for
short durations to see 33s working ''4Rep'' that were made of TC DTSO
and Rep trailers, and dead 4Rep wih DL/EDL haulage. Push pull yes,
push pull tests no.

--
Nick

Graeme

2010-02-24 14:40:41 UTC

Post by D7666

I think you might possibly have confused two different test set ups
and/or confused with some of the early days of Bomo line working when
Reps were delivered out of sequence.

Just going on what Trains Illustrated said in 1966 :-)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, very interesting.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Photo galleries at <http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/>

Chris Tolley

2010-02-23 11:40:54 UTC

Yep. Used to travel on one. Early 80s teatime train from Waterloo to
Salisbury & Southampton. 33/1+4TC+4VEP. Split at Basingstoke.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9628981.html
(08 850 at Reading, Jul 1985)

d***@yahoo.co.uk

2010-02-23 19:07:26 UTC

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:40:54 +0000, Chris Tolley

Post by Chris Tolley

Post by Roland Perry
I'm in Amsterdam today, and saw an interesting train at Centraal this
morning. There are EMUs and loco-hauled trains, and quite often the
latter are configured with the loco in the middle of the train,
But this morning there was a train where one of those rakes was an EMU,
rather than trailers. So it went Trailers/loco/4-car EMU
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

Yep. Used to travel on one. Early 80s teatime train from Waterloo to
Salisbury & Southampton. 33/1+4TC+4VEP. Split at Basingstoke.

I travelled at least once to Southampton on a late departure from
Waterloo and recall looking along the train and seeing the 33 in the
middle. Cannot remember if it was at Basingstoke or Eastleigh.

G.Harman

Pat O'Neill

2010-02-23 19:25:31 UTC

Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:40:54 +0000, Chris Tolley

Post by Chris Tolley

Post by Roland Perry
I'm in Amsterdam today, and saw an interesting train at Centraal this
morning. There are EMUs and loco-hauled trains, and quite often the
latter are configured with the loco in the middle of the train,
But this morning there was a train where one of those rakes was an EMU,
rather than trailers. So it went Trailers/loco/4-car EMU
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

Yep. Used to travel on one. Early 80s teatime train from Waterloo to
Salisbury & Southampton. 33/1+4TC+4VEP. Split at Basingstoke.

When I was Guards Inspector at Clapham Jct, it was a Clapham turn Link 1 or
2.

Peter Masson

2010-02-23 11:41:02 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

From 1967 at least into the 1980s there were trains into and out of Waterloo
formed of, for example, a Class 33 diesel loco, a 4TC, and a 4VEP.

Peter

Neil Williams

2010-02-23 12:03:41 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

A preserved railway I admit, but in the summer I travelled on the
Wensleydale steam special, the stock of which (because they have no
vacuum-braked LHCS) was a cobbled-together set of their various DMUs
with the final drives isolated.

In Switzerland you get some chopping and changing of that kind, but
then their EMUs aren't really EMUs (except the very new low-floor
ones), they're independent power-driving coaches (single-ended locos
with seats in them, effectively) which can have any kind of LHCS or
whatever else whacked between them as required.

Neil

amogles

2010-02-23 13:11:43 UTC

Post by Neil Williams
In Switzerland you get some chopping and changing of that kind, but
then their EMUs aren't really EMUs (except the very new low-floor
ones), they're independent power-driving coaches (single-ended locos
with seats in them, effectively) which can have any kind of LHCS or
whatever else whacked between them as required.
Neil

SBB and Trenitalia jointly own intercity emu Pendolino sets (formerly
Cisalpino) that work between Zurich and Milano (and some other
destinations besides). Due to concerns over the leading vehicle being
too light in case it runs into a snowdrift, freight locos (Ae6/6 last
time I checked) are sometimes coupled onto the front of early morning
workings during periods that there is a risk of avalanches or
snowdrifts. The locos are unable to actually mu with the pendolinos so
the drivers communicate by radio.

EE507

2010-02-23 12:07:20 UTC

Hmmm, can't think of any example other than the SR's fondness for VEP/
TC/33 combinations as already discussed.

Broadening the scope of the thread, does anyone know if SNCB/NMBS is
able to run its IC hauled stock in multiple with the very similar
looking 3-car IC EMUs?

Not answering the orginal question, but the Danes manage to run EMUs
and DMUs in multiple. That's auto-coupler stock, so unlikely to be
compatible with DSB's dwindling loco fleet. Is this done anywhere else
in the world?

Neil Williams

2010-02-23 12:15:03 UTC

Post by EE507
Not answering the orginal question, but the Danes manage to run EMUs
and DMUs in multiple. That's auto-coupler stock, so unlikely to be
compatible with DSB's dwindling loco fleet. Is this done anywhere else
in the world?

I recall that Voyagers and Pendolinos will couple, but only
mechanically and not electrically, so only for rescue purposes.

Neil

Primitive Person

2010-02-23 14:38:10 UTC

Post by Neil Williams

I recall that Voyagers and Pendolinos will couple, but only
mechanically and not electrically, so only for rescue purposes.
Neil

Apparently the reason why Southern has Class 171 units and not class
170s is that the 171s have the same couplers as the 377s, for
emergency purposes, but I don't know if that's an electrical
connection.

Lee

Marc Van Dyck

2010-02-23 14:07:12 UTC

Post by EE507
Broadening the scope of the thread, does anyone know if SNCB/NMBS is
able to run its IC hauled stock in multiple with the very similar
looking 3-car IC EMUs?

No. I11 cars match with HLE 13 locs, all equipped with standard
european couplers, while the AM96 have automatic couplers and
mate only among themselves (but bi- and monocourant can mix and
match freely).

--
Marc Van Dyck

D7666

2010-02-23 16:41:33 UTC

CZ EMU + EL

In Czech in the past CD have substituted a class 140 electric loco for
one motor coach of a class 460 EMU and set up full multiple working
for it. 460s were formed MTTTM with each M a BoBo motor coach. ISTR
they had something like a depot fire at one end of some sidings that
took out several M coaches on sets stabled on parallel tracks.
Something like that anyway. The T coaches and he other M were all OK,
so a 140 substituted.

UK BOMO line

In the early days of the Bomo electrification on summer saturdays
there was a really assymetric diagram that did something like 33 push
8TC Salisbury Waterloo and ISTR it was *no* attach anything at
Basingstoke in this diagram. At Waterloo or possibly Clapham Yard an
EMU a 4Vep at the London end of the set.

This ensemble was then a Waterloo SWANAGE that dropped the EMU at
Bournemouth, the 33+TC going forward. On the return the 33 pushed back
to Bournemouth, but there it dropped the 33 ... modus operandi forward
was 73+2Hap (!!!) in multiple hauling the 8TC.

AIUI this was only for part of the 1967, but it is documented as
happening (or some trivial detailed vasriation of what I write).

UK other

The one no-one mentioned so far is ECML 91+stock+HST power car ...
which one /could/ argue is mixing loco with m.u. depending on how one
looks at at HST i.e. the perennial is it a DEMU or is it a loco
discussion.

SNCB/NMBS

In a further variation in the discussion, this time diesel electric +
diesel hydraulic did the d/h EMD powered 7500s/75s ever multi with the
d/e EMD powered 6200s/62s - i've wondered how the aar stepped d/e
control system coped with a 3 or 4 stage or whatever it was torque
convertor. I can see how it could cope on nits own, but not when
multiplied with a d/e.

--
Nick

Marc Van Dyck

2010-02-23 18:00:08 UTC

Post by EE507
SNCB/NMBS
In a further variation in the discussion, this time diesel electric +
diesel hydraulic did the d/h EMD powered 7500s/75s ever multi with the
d/e EMD powered 6200s/62s - i've wondered how the aar stepped d/e
control system coped with a 3 or 4 stage or whatever it was torque
convertor. I can see how it could cope on nits own, but not when
multiplied with a d/e.

Not as far as I know. First of all because at the time these locs
where in operation, practice of MU with Diesel engines was not so
frequent at SNCB ; and also because (an ex-SNCB driver told me) the
controls of those locs where not compatible with their diesel-electric
couterparts. So 64 and 65 could - but I doubt it - have done MU among
themselves but certainly not with other models.

If you are looking for occurences of electric and diesel engines MUed
in day to day operations, the most famous example is probably the
Milwaukee Road out of Chicago.

--
Marc Van Dyck

William JONES

2010-03-05 22:40:15 UTC

"D7666" <***@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1e577c11-d6c5-42bf-9e12-***@z39g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

[...]

| SNCB/NMBS
|
| In a further variation in the discussion, this time diesel electric +
| diesel hydraulic did the d/h EMD powered 7500s/75s ever multi with the
| d/e EMD powered 6200s/62s - i've wondered how the aar stepped d/e
| control system coped with a 3 or 4 stage or whatever it was torque
| convertor. I can see how it could cope on nits own, but not when
| multiplied with a d/e.

I put the question on a Belgian Railway's drivers discussion group, and the answer given
was :
<QUOTE>
L'UM agit sur les bobines de commande du régulateur Woodward et comme dans une 75, c'est
pas le même woodward du tout... Le Woodward agit sur le LR (régulateur de charge qui fait
varier l'exitation de la GP) ; comme dans une 75, ya pas de GP, c'est beaucoup plus dur de
l'exiter!
C'est quasi un régulateur de 73 dedans mais le bobinage de commande est différent si je me
souviens bien
franchement, ça me semble difficile de faire la connection.
<END QUOTE>.

A very rough translation would be something like : "The MU works on the command coils of
the Woodward regulator, and the regulator of a 75 being absolutely not the same one ...
The Woorward works on the LR (load regulator that varies the excitation of the main
generator) ; as in the 75 ain't no main generator, it's much more hard to excite it ! It's
nearly a regulator of 73 (shunter) but ISTR that the command coil is different ; it seems
to me it would be quite difficult to make the connexion."

Hope it helps ...

--
A+
William.

=============
La mort est une blessure qui ne se referme jamais ; parfois on saigne moins, c'est tout.

David Hansen

2010-02-23 14:54:36 UTC

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:07:20 -0800 (PST) someone who may be EE507

Post by EE507

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

Hmmm, can't think of any example other than the SR's fondness for VEP/
TC/33 combinations as already discussed.

For those outside the UK trains between London and Weymouth used to
consist of an EMU, known as a 4-REP, pushing two sets of trailers,
known as 4-TCs, to Bournemouth, where a locomotive was coupled to
the front and the 4-REP was left behind. Each of the two powered
coaches in a 4-REP was equivalent to an electro-diesel locomotive,
in fact the motors were the same.

The reason for that background is that when the 4-REPs were being
withdrawn, for the electrical equipment to be removed and put in new
trains, one and then two of the motor coaches were removed from the
multiple unit and replaced by electro-diesel locomotives. This was
possible because of common control systems. The locomotives were
placed at the end of the train, as they did not have corridor
connections. Thus these trains at one stage had an electro-diesel
locomotive, part of an EMU and trailer coaches. Then they had two
locomotives, the remaining two coaches of a now unpowered EMU and
trailer coaches.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

D7666

2010-02-23 16:46:25 UTC

Post by David Hansen
connections. Thus these trains at one stage had an electro-diesel
locomotive, part of an EMU and trailer coaches. Then they had two
locomotives, the remaining two coaches of a now unpowered EMU and
trailer coaches.

That last bit is not true, there were no 2xEDL with ''remaining two
coaches''; 2xEDL worked only with complete 4/5TC sets.

After 4Rep lost one motor coach yes the 3 cars left worked with one
EDL, but when the 2nd Rep motor hd to go the entire unit was
withdrawn.

--
Nick

David Hansen

2010-02-23 22:27:31 UTC

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:46:25 -0800 (PST) someone who may be D7666

Post by D7666
That last bit is not true, there were no 2xEDL with ''remaining two
coaches''; 2xEDL worked only with complete 4/5TC sets.

I'll take your word for it. It is too long ago for me to remember
clearly.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

David Hansen

2010-02-23 14:57:55 UTC

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:07:20 -0800 (PST) someone who may be EE507

IIRC that was one of the things the Class 210 was intended to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_210

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

tobias b koehler

2010-02-26 13:34:30 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

In Switzerland it is at least theoretically possible to operate RBe 4/4
(new number RBe 540, EMU with 2nd class seats) and locomotives Re 4/4
II-III or Re 6/6 together. I know of no regular application, they just
use the same system.

The RBe 4/4 started as express trains but were soon used as regional
trains (with middle and cab cars), both urban and rural, there are also
versions for private railways with less power and different interior
(also first class and/or baggage: ABe 4/4, ABDe 4/4, BDe 4/4).

By the way, the oldest RBe 4/4 still operating are from 1963; perhaps
they will reach 50 years in regular service. The prototypes from 1959
went out of regular service in 2005/2006, but the 1405 is preserved as a
museum unit.

In Austria we sometimes had combinations of class 4010 (actually a fixed
push-pull train with a power unit, four middle cars and a cab car) with
a locomotive and passenger cars in intercity service. In this case the
4010 was pulled, not operating under power; the cars received their
power from the locomotive's electric cable and the pneumatic brake
worked normally.

toby

bob

2010-02-26 13:48:38 UTC

Post by tobias b koehler

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

I think you can add the Ae 6/6 to the list, at least in so far as I'm
pretty sure I've seen them working in multiple with Re 4/4s round
here.

Robin

tobias b koehler

2010-02-27 22:23:28 UTC

Post by bob
I think you can add the Ae 6/6 to the list, at least in so far as I'm
pretty sure I've seen them working in multiple with Re 4/4s round
here.

No, the Ae 6/6 does not have multiple unit train control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_Ae_6/6

"One of the biggest disadvantages of the Ae 6/6 is said to be the lack
of multiple unit train control, which makes operating two engines
together impractical. At one time, retrofitting this feature was
proposed, but these plans were discarded due to the uncertain future of
the locomotive."

D7666

2010-02-28 16:57:00 UTC

Post by tobias b koehler
No, the Ae 6/6 does not have multiple unit train control.

ISTR rreadng there was a good reason at the time Ae6/6 was introduced
that they did not equip them for multiple working ... but I am afraid
right now I can not think what it was. I think it could be this reason
that has always made retro-fitting expensive, even when they were not
as old as they are now it would have been a major job.

--
Nick

Bruce

2010-02-28 19:18:34 UTC

Post by D7666

Post by tobias b koehler
No, the Ae 6/6 does not have multiple unit train control.

ISTR rreadng there was a good reason at the time Ae6/6 was introduced
that they did not equip them for multiple working ... but I am afraid
right now I can not think what it was.

Was it because, at the time they were introduced, the SBB/CFF/FFS
thought the Ae 6/6 was so powerful that it would never normally need
to be operated in multiple?

Based on that thinking, the cost of an additional driver would not
have been thought to be a problem for those very rare occasions when
an Ae 6/6 would double head a train with another loco.

D7666

2010-02-28 20:06:44 UTC

Post by D7666
ISTR rreadng there was a good reason at the time Ae6/6 was introduced
that they did not equip them for multiple working ... but I am afraid
right now I can not think what it was.

Was it because, at the time they were introduced, the SBB/CFF/FFS
thought the Ae 6/6 was so powerful that it would never normally need
to be operated in multiple?
Based on that thinking, the cost of an additional driver would not
have been thought to be a problem for those very rare occasions when
an Ae 6/6 would double head a train with another loco.

I think it was a technical reason although your words are perfectly
valid.

--
Nick

William JONES

2010-02-28 20:57:03 UTC

hello,

Wouldn't it be a question of exceeding the maximum tractive load on screw couplings if two
engines start a heavy train together ?
--
A+
William.

=============
La mort est une blessure qui ne se referme jamais ; parfois on saigne moins, c'est tout.

Post by D7666
ISTR rreadng there was a good reason at the time Ae6/6 was introduced
that they did not equip them for multiple working ... but I am afraid
right now I can not think what it was.

Was it because, at the time they were introduced, the SBB/CFF/FFS
thought the Ae 6/6 was so powerful that it would never normally need
to be operated in multiple?
Based on that thinking, the cost of an additional driver would not
have been thought to be a problem for those very rare occasions when
an Ae 6/6 would double head a train with another loco.

I think it was a technical reason although your words are perfectly
valid.

--
Nick

D7666

2010-02-28 23:47:23 UTC

Post by William JONES
hello,
Wouldn't it be a question of exceeding the maximum tractive load on screw couplings if two
engines start a heavy train together ?

No - because that applies even more with 2 x Re6/6 and those CAN
multiple.

The drawbar strength limit does restrict *coupling* locos to the
classic Re10/10 combo (Re4/4 + Re6/6) unless other traction is
assisting along the train ...

... but the control system allows any Re6/6+6/6 to work together.
Given that an Ae6/6 is much less powerful than an Re6/6 this would not
be the ruling factor.

Do not muddle coupling restrictions with multiple unit control
restrictions !

--
Nick

matt

2010-02-23 13:11:31 UTC

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

Does a Class 66 + 2 x Class 325 EMU count ? (Cover of this weeks
Railway Herald :-)

</tenuous>

Roland Perry

2010-02-23 13:32:12 UTC

In message

Post by matt

Post by Roland Perry
Have there ever been services in the UK comprised of a combination of
loco, trailers and an EMU?

Does a Class 66 + 2 x Class 325 EMU count ? (Cover of this weeks
Railway Herald :-)
</tenuous>

Dragging an EMU [potentially] off the wires isn't quite what I had in
mind. More something like coupling (say) an electric loco and half a
dozen carriages, behind an EMU, and sending it off to Ipswich from
Liverpool St.

--
Roland Perry

d***@blueyunder.co.uk

2010-02-23 13:56:57 UTC

Plenty of answers re. UK examples, so I'll not comment, but I think
that what you've observed in Amsterdam is quite common there, except
it wasn't an EMU....

NS have had two different varients of loco-hauled push-pull DD stock
for some years now, originally worked by class 1700 e-loks.
They are screw-coupled to the coaches but are also fitted with
low-level auto-couplers at the outer ends of each rake, so that
longer trains could indeed be formed & run in multiple with each
other.

The next development was to replace some of the e-loks with Bo-Bo-Bo
powercars, built to the same profile as the DD coaches, but with a
raised single level of passenger accomodation. (Single level 'cos
since having a central power bogie meant that there was very little
underfloor for the traction equipment, so it lives in it's own
engine-room....)

Since both the power cars & e-locks are numbered separately & and can
be swapped around from one rake to another, the trains aren't really
EMU's, (as in HST's are no longer considered to be DMU's in the UK)
although they can be MU'd together.

Confusing, innit!

It's not so unusual a concept, GO Transit in Toronto used to couple 2
diesel loco + DD car PP sets together for rush trips on the Lakeshore
line, & I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.

Hope that you are still awake!

David C.

Bruce

2010-02-23 14:56:21 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.

You mean something like a Great Western pannier tank in the middle of
four auto-coaches?

Nothing new, then. ;-)

d***@blueyunder.co.uk

2010-02-23 16:30:53 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.

You mean something like a Great Western pannier tank in the middle of
four auto-coaches?
Nothing new, then. ;-)

True, but a little more impressive, a big 3500 hp Co-Co diesel,
surrounded by 2 x 6 car PP sets....................

The GO trains were also a sight worth seeing, two 120 tonne F59PH
diesels bracketing 12 85 ft d/deckers.
A suburban LST on steroids?
(81 mph top speed.....)

DC

Bruce

2010-02-23 18:18:52 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.

You mean something like a Great Western pannier tank in the middle of
four auto-coaches?
Nothing new, then. ;-)

True, but a little more impressive, a big 3500 hp Co-Co diesel,
surrounded by 2 x 6 car PP sets....................

OK, I will concede that would be a little more impressive, but perhaps
a little less charming?

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
The GO trains were also a sight worth seeing, two 120 tonne F59PH
diesels bracketing 12 85 ft d/deckers.
A suburban LST on steroids?
(81 mph top speed.....)

Yes, that would be worth seeing.

The GO timetables are interesting, with a lot of one way services to
Toronto in the morning peak and one way returns in the afternoon peak.
I suppose it reflects demand, but it results in poor utilisation of
stock.

d***@blueyunder.co.uk

2010-02-24 00:55:40 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.

You mean something like a Great Western pannier tank in the middle of
four auto-coaches?
Nothing new, then. ;-)

True, but a little more impressive, a big 3500 hp Co-Co diesel,
surrounded by 2 x 6 car PP sets....................

OK, I will concede that would be a little more impressive, but perhaps
a little less charming?

Agreed, but probably safer, given that the fireman did nearly all the
work when working a British steam p/p train. Generally the driver had
control over the train brake & sometimes the regulator, but hat's all.

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
The GO trains were also a sight worth seeing, two 120 tonne F59PH
diesels bracketing 12 85 ft d/deckers.
A suburban LST on steroids?
(81 mph top speed.....)

Yes, that would be worth seeing.

The passenger cars are imrpessive, big lozenge shaped beasties, with a
riveted aluminium construction. Original design by Hawker Siddley
Canada, so I guess aircraft engineering techniques were used.
Nowadys they are a Bombardier design, & used in many other N. American
cities.

GO have recently taken delivery of some 4000hp diesels from Motive
Power Industries, & given that all their diesels have separate HEP
sets, that seems to be enough traction power to keep to time with 12
car trains.

Post by Bruce
The GO timetables are interesting, with a lot of one way services to
Toronto in the morning peak and one way returns in the afternoon peak.
I suppose it reflects demand, but it results in poor utilisation of
stock.

Your are correct, once away from the Lakeshore route, there's very
little demand, or track capacity for off-peak services.
Since GO is also an operator of suburban bus / coach services, most
off-peak service is provided by buses.

GO used to terminate it's road services in Toronto in the down-town
long-distance coach station, or at the end of the subway lines, but
they also have a a new coach station adjacent to Toronto Union
Station, so that's travelling by train or coach brings one to the same
terminal.
Same goes for the suburban stops, so given that the fare structure
allows travel by rail or road for the same price, parking the
commuter trains in Toronto for the day makes sense, also giving time
for fuelling & maintainence.

GO has storage yards at or near all of it's suburban terminals, but
concentrates maintainence at Willowbrook / Mimico, about 8 miles west
of Union Station.

To get back to the OT, VIA Rail Canada operates some of it's services
in the Toronto - Montréal Corridor coupled together elephabt style, to
save paths on a busy main-line.
Usually east-bound trains (separately numbered) for Montréal & Ottawa,
with each loco powering but only supplying HEP to it's own set of
coaches.
The rolling stock used, LRC coaches, HEP2 stainless steel cars & the
occaisional REN (ex Chunnel Nightstock seating cars) are fitted with
the standard AAR control lines & jumpers, so mu'ing isn't a problem.

I do have a video showing the short-lived Enterprise sleeper from
Montréal, coupled to a Kingston -Toronto commuter train passing
through the Toronto burbs with three locos, an F40PH on the front &
two Genesis P42 GE's, middle & trailing, all under power.

Another impressive sight.....

DC

Roger Traviss

2010-02-24 01:20:23 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
The passenger cars are imrpessive, big lozenge shaped beasties, with a
riveted aluminium construction. Original design by Hawker Siddley
Canada, so I guess aircraft engineering techniques were used.
Nowadys they are a Bombardier design, & used in many other N. American
cities.

Like these: -

Loading Image...

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
GO have recently taken delivery of some 4000hp diesels from Motive
Power Industries, & given that all their diesels have separate HEP
sets, that seems to be enough traction power to keep to time with 12
car trains.

Loading Image...

--
Roger T.
See the G.E.R. at: -
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/index.htm

DW downunder

2010-04-06 12:14:59 UTC

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.

You mean something like a Great Western pannier tank in the middle of
four auto-coaches?
Nothing new, then. ;-)

True, but a little more impressive, a big 3500 hp Co-Co diesel,
surrounded by 2 x 6 car PP sets....................

OK, I will concede that would be a little more impressive, but perhaps
a little less charming?

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
The GO trains were also a sight worth seeing, two 120 tonne F59PH
diesels bracketing 12 85 ft d/deckers.
A suburban LST on steroids?
(81 mph top speed.....)

Yes, that would be worth seeing.

The passenger cars are imrpessive, big lozenge shaped beasties, with a
riveted aluminium construction. Original design by Hawker Siddley
Canada, so I guess aircraft engineering techniques were used.

With technical assistance and input from Commonwealth Engineering in New
South Wales, based on the successful "V" type Interurban EMUs built for the
NSW 1500v DC electrified network.

<SNIP>

Post by d***@blueyunder.co.uk
DC

DW downunder

amogles

2010-02-24 13:04:28 UTC

plus the staff having to work a lot of unproductive half shifts (drive
one way, go home as a passenger or by taxi).
Unless they could be employed on other work until the time came for
them to drive the trains back.

Bruce

2010-02-24 13:28:13 UTC

Post by amogles

plus the staff having to work a lot of unproductive half shifts (drive
one way, go home as a passenger or by taxi).

True.

Post by amogles
Unless they could be employed on other work until the time came for
them to drive the trains back.

It would be interesting to know how this is managed.

Roland Perry

2010-02-23 18:08:47 UTC

I think that what you've observed in Amsterdam is quite common there,
except it wasn't an EMU....
NS have had two different varients of loco-hauled push-pull DD stock
for some years now, originally worked by class 1700 e-loks.
They are screw-coupled to the coaches but are also fitted with
low-level auto-couplers at the outer ends of each rake, so that
longer trains could indeed be formed & run in multiple with each
other.
The next development was to replace some of the e-loks with Bo-Bo-Bo
powercars, built to the same profile as the DD coaches, but with a
raised single level of passenger accomodation. (Single level 'cos
since having a central power bogie meant that there was very little
underfloor for the traction equipment, so it lives in it's own
engine-room....)
Since both the power cars & e-locks are numbered separately & and can
be swapped around from one rake to another, the trains aren't really
EMU's, (as in HST's are no longer considered to be DMU's in the UK)
although they can be MU'd together.

That gives me something to look out for in future. What I noticed about
the train (and I don't think I've seen it before) was the presence of
two pantographs quite close together. One on the loco and another on the
"EMU end unit" it was coupled to. I didn't see if that latter unit only
had one layer of seating within the DD profile.

--
Roland Perry

D7666

2010-02-23 22:11:27 UTC

I think that what you've observed in Amsterdam is quite common there,
except it wasn't an EMU....

If and when I get around to locating it, normally each year there is a
complete list available - in Nederlandesish - of all trains and their
formations, and these mixed DDM stock with mDDM motor coaches and 1700
locos is not new. They are merely treated as sets and when they need
to couple two sets together and they happen to be of different types
well no matter it all works.

--
Nick

amogles

2010-02-24 13:00:02 UTC

It's not so unusual a concept, GO Transit in Toronto used to couple 2
diesel loco + DD car PP sets together for rush trips on the Lakeshore
line, & I've seen video on you-tube of NOB trains in Germany with two
rakes of push-pull stock, with the diesel loco in the middle.
Hope that you are still awake!
David C.

Here we see the same in Switzerland

Loading Image...

Re450 locomotives are screw-coupled onto 3 car double-deck push pull
sets to work the Zurich suburban services.

Although locos and coaches remain paired for longer periods, the
numbers carried are those of the individual vehicles. Sets do not have
numbers, and vehicles get exchanged between sets in line with
maintenance requirements.

Although screw couplings are used within sets, the sets have automatic
couplings at the outer extremities and can hence be easily coupled
together. As the photo above shows, you frequently get trains with
loco + 3 coaches + loco + 3 coaches. At peak times you even get three
sets coupled together, ie loco + 3 coaches + loco + 3 coaches + loco +
3 coaches.

Sometimes you also get sets that face the "wrong" way round due to
triangular workings. This means you may get formations in the style of
3 coaches + loco + loco + 3 coaches or variants thereof.

The railways have recently acquired 4-car double deck emus to
supplement the fleet. Originally it was planned that these would be
able to mu with the above trains. This would have led to all sorts of
interesting formations. However, that never happened as the
manufacturer couldn't get them to mu properly.

p***@tiscali.co.uk

2010-02-24 20:13:30 UTC